The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-09-22
THE FINDING IN THE INSANE ASYLUM
CASE.

ing, but the final outcome of that cast
D establishes a condition of affairs that re
} fleets but little credit on the wisdom OF
the lawmakers who framed our asylum
regulations, and puts the administration
and the board of managers of the asylum
in position as awkward as it is discredit'
able to the laws of the state. The history OF
the investigation is about as follows: Upon
the conclusion of the evidence and argu-
ment, the board, by vote of 4 to l, de-
clared DR.. Dorset, the superintendent,
guilty of eleven of the charges brought
against him. Four of the five members
of the board then voted TO notify DR..
Dorsett that they we're prepared to, and
would accept his resignation if he desired
to tender it. DR.. Dorset replied to the
communication of the board by refusing
to resign. This brought the matter to
the direct issue of whether or not
they should dismiss him, and the
board adjourned over from Wednesday
to Saturday, not to discuss whether or
not DR.. Dorsett had been guilty of con-
duct that demanded such summary pro-
ceeding, but to determine the power of
the board and whether or not in their di-
vided condition, having only majority
in favor of dismissal and not unanimous
board, they could legally put him out of
Office. The ablest counsel in Austin were
consulted, and all the laws and court de-
cisions bearing on the case were ex-
amined, and the decision was
reached that unanimous board
was requiaed by the law
to warrant dismissal from office. In
this view Of the case the board were
| powerless to carry out the decision of its
majority, that DIR. Dorset had been
guilty of conduct that warranted re-
moval. But they had, by vote of four
to one, found him guilty of several Of
lenses unbecoming an officer of the state
holding his position; they could not dis
miss him, nor could they pass the matter
by without some action. 1t was the case
of jury's verdict of guilty, while they
could not agree in assessing the penalty
They at last compromised, and by a unani-
nous vote, decided to censure and rep
rimand him for certain conduct of
which they had found him guilty. The
three old members of the board, DR..
Smoot and Messrs. Castleman and Deffen
baugh, who had from the first ballot on
the case been in favor of dismissing DIR.
Dorset, and who at the close moved the
vote of censure, then indited a letter to
the governor reciting what they had done,
and announcing that if their action did
not meet with his approval he might con
slider their resignation as being in his
hands. The governor replied that he
heartily approved of their action and
would not accept their designations.
The case then, stands this way;
a majority of the board favored dismiss
ing the uperintendent, the whole board
unanimously decided he was guilty of
conduct that called for censure and repri-
mand, which they placed upon him, and
the governor heartily concurs in the action
of the board, and yet the superintendent
still holds his office. The governor has
no authority to dismiss him, and divided
board cannot do so. remarkable con-
dition of affairs, indeed.
The law in the case seems to strongly
favor the view held by the majority of the
board that it required a unanimous board
to dismiss the superintendent. This view
is confirmed by strong Texas decision
and by the fact that the power to remove
the superintendent is not found
specified among the general and
enumerated powers of the board, those
they perform by majorities; but is found
undera separate head which fact is constru-
ed by able legal talent to mean that while
the board has the power to remove the su-
perintendent it can only exercise it as
whole, unanimous board. This state of
affairs puts the board and the administra-
ton in this attitude, that one man of the
five on the board can defeat
the will of the other four members, and
even the wish of the governor who ap-
points the board, and who, after all has
been said, is the one really held RESPONSE
BILE by the state for the proper admins
tration of the affairs of the asylum. IL
this is true Interpretation of the law, and
we believe it is, then it is merely travesty
upon good law, and carried to its legiti-
mate result, means negation of the
power of the man the state has chosen to
be her governor, a tying of his hands
and then holding him responsible
for what he can neither cure nor correct.
Such law can not with propriety long
remain on the statute books. The in
terests of the state demand there should
be authority in this matter, either in the
board or in the governor, surely not in
one member of the board or in the
minority of the board
We have carefully avoided personal
discussion of this case; we have considered
it dispassionately, and solely from legal
stpndnnint and p;tbort .ofo.a...z l..